sorry, I went back thru your links

http://voices.washin...ack_confeder.html

As a matter of fact, one of Jefferson Davis's generals did advise him to emancipate and arm slaves at the start of the war. But Davis vehemently rejected that advice. It "would revolt and disgust the whole South," he snapped. During the first few years of the war, some others repeated this suggestion. Each time, Richmond slapped it down. Not only would no slaves be enlisted; no one who was not certifiably white, whether slave or free, would be permitted to become a Confederate soldier.

And the Confederacy's policy of excluding blacks from its armed forces was effective. John Beauchamp Jones, a high-level assistant to the secretary of war, scoffed at rumors that the Confederacy had units made up of slaves. "This is utterly untrue," he wrote in his diary. "We have no armed slaves to fight for us." Asked to double-check, Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon confirmed that "No slaves have been employed by the Government except as cooks or nurses in hospitals and for labor."

Why were the leaders so stubborn on this point? Because they were fighting to preserve African American slavery and the racial creed that justified it. Slavery's defenders insisted that blacks were inferior to whites -- uniquely suited to dull, arduous labor but incapable of assuming the responsibilities of free people, citizens or soldiers. As Seddon explained, since the Confederacy had taken that stand both before "the North and before the world," it could "not allow the employment as armed soldiers of negroes." Putting blacks into gray uniforms would be seen as a confession that this ideology was a lie. Even more practically, the Confederacy worried about what black troops would do with their weapons. At the very least they feared (in the words of Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin) that black Confederate soldiers would desert to the enemy "in mass."

I find it curious that so many people who now throw around words like "tyranny" and "slavery" for eventually being required to buy health insurance (or pay a fine) or to wear seat belts (or pay a fine) are compatriots of those who say that there were thousands of blacks who willingly took up arms and fought for a system that actually enslaved people. Would those who claim that there actually were such thousands have been among them if they were in their shoes? Would you?

I wouldn't.

In closing, have a read of this: http://www.bjmjr.net/mcbride/myth.htm

[...]

CleburneÂs Proposal

There was, however, at least one serious proposal for a Black Confederate Army Brigade made by the SouthÂs Major General Patrick R. Cleburne. Cleburne was a general in the Irish Army and volunteered to serve the Confederacy after the Civil War actually began in April of 1861. Meeting with nearly half of Jefferson DavisÂ top generals at Tunnel Hill, Georgia, on January 2, 1864, Cleburne advised his fellow Confederate commanders that Âwe immediately commence training a large reserve of the most courageous of our slavesÂ and that Âwe guarantee freedom within a reasonable time to every slave in the South who shall remain true to the Confederacy in this war.Â

Cleburne at first had the firm support of General Joseph E. Johnston, the SouthÂs second most powerful general after Robert E. Lee. Johnston, in fact, had assembled the generals in his headquarters on the night of January 2, where the proposal was first laid out. Some of the generals there later claimed that they objected to the basic idea of arming black men and liberating them for their service to the South, but nearly all of the 15 top officers at the meeting praised Cleburne for laying out his bold blueprint for victory for the South.

The reaction from Jefferson Davis and his Secretary of War, James A. Seddon, was a blanket rejection. Despite what they saw as the Âpatriotic intents of the gallant author of the memorial and such of his brother officers as may have favored his opinions,Â they ordered an immediate Âsuppression, not only of the memorial itself, but likewise of all discussion and controversy respecting or growing out of it.Â

[...]

I think I'm done.

Cheers,
Scott.

I have read part of the black historian's book who claimed his grand/greatfather fought for the confederacy. Parts of the book is available free on google. Read the first page or two. He isnt giving anyone a pass.
http://books.google....onepage&q&f=false

I am in no way trying to gloss over slavery but I am assuming that many of the traits of the folks of color and indigenous whites is not as cut and dried as the revisionists would leave you to believe. Having spent time in the deep south 12-15 years after the civil rights act passed with many of the same divisions that have festered for generations still very much at the surface I learned a few things. One being that a man regardless of color is proud, and he will fight strangers for his family, land and way of life even if the person/goverment/entity asserting the change claims it is for the better. So while it would surprise you to think that any male black in the south would fight on behalf of the confederacy it doesnt surprise me at all.

As for your cite that only lily liver'ed whites may serve, please explain General Stand Watie, The seminoles who also fought who were often half black, Creeks, choctaws and others. Trying to claim the south was all about rich white people is revisionism at its worst.

Post #347,346 by boxley 9/4/11 6:11:20 PM Reply	sorry, I went back thru your links and dont see anything regarding it being illegal to allow black soldiers in the south. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #347,351 by Another Scott 9/4/11 7:28:42 PM Reply	One last time, then I'm done. http://voices.washin...ack_confeder.html As a matter of fact, one of Jefferson Davis's generals did advise him to emancipate and arm slaves at the start of the war. But Davis vehemently rejected that advice. It "would revolt and disgust the whole South," he snapped. During the first few years of the war, some others repeated this suggestion. Each time, Richmond slapped it down. Not only would no slaves be enlisted; no one who was not certifiably white, whether slave or free, would be permitted to become a Confederate soldier. And the Confederacy's policy of excluding blacks from its armed forces was effective. John Beauchamp Jones, a high-level assistant to the secretary of war, scoffed at rumors that the Confederacy had units made up of slaves. "This is utterly untrue," he wrote in his diary. "We have no armed slaves to fight for us." Asked to double-check, Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon confirmed that "No slaves have been employed by the Government except as cooks or nurses in hospitals and for labor." Why were the leaders so stubborn on this point? Because they were fighting to preserve African American slavery and the racial creed that justified it. Slavery's defenders insisted that blacks were inferior to whites -- uniquely suited to dull, arduous labor but incapable of assuming the responsibilities of free people, citizens or soldiers. As Seddon explained, since the Confederacy had taken that stand both before "the North and before the world," it could "not allow the employment as armed soldiers of negroes." Putting blacks into gray uniforms would be seen as a confession that this ideology was a lie. Even more practically, the Confederacy worried about what black troops would do with their weapons. At the very least they feared (in the words of Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin) that black Confederate soldiers would desert to the enemy "in mass." I find it curious that so many people who now throw around words like "tyranny" and "slavery" for eventually being required to buy health insurance (or pay a fine) or to wear seat belts (or pay a fine) are compatriots of those who say that there were thousands of blacks who willingly took up arms and fought for a system that actually enslaved people. Would those who claim that there actually were such thousands have been among them if they were in their shoes? Would you? I wouldn't. In closing, have a read of this: http://www.bjmjr.net/mcbride/myth.htm [...] CleburneÂs Proposal There was, however, at least one serious proposal for a Black Confederate Army Brigade made by the SouthÂs Major General Patrick R. Cleburne. Cleburne was a general in the Irish Army and volunteered to serve the Confederacy after the Civil War actually began in April of 1861. Meeting with nearly half of Jefferson DavisÂ top generals at Tunnel Hill, Georgia, on January 2, 1864, Cleburne advised his fellow Confederate commanders that Âwe immediately commence training a large reserve of the most courageous of our slavesÂ and that Âwe guarantee freedom within a reasonable time to every slave in the South who shall remain true to the Confederacy in this war.Â Cleburne at first had the firm support of General Joseph E. Johnston, the SouthÂs second most powerful general after Robert E. Lee. Johnston, in fact, had assembled the generals in his headquarters on the night of January 2, where the proposal was first laid out. Some of the generals there later claimed that they objected to the basic idea of arming black men and liberating them for their service to the South, but nearly all of the 15 top officers at the meeting praised Cleburne for laying out his bold blueprint for victory for the South. The reaction from Jefferson Davis and his Secretary of War, James A. Seddon, was a blanket rejection. Despite what they saw as the Âpatriotic intents of the gallant author of the memorial and such of his brother officers as may have favored his opinions,Â they ordered an immediate Âsuppression, not only of the memorial itself, but likewise of all discussion and controversy respecting or growing out of it.Â [...] I think I'm done. Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,353 by boxley 9/4/11 9:30:23 PM Reply	One last time myself I have read part of the black historian's book who claimed his grand/greatfather fought for the confederacy. Parts of the book is available free on google. Read the first page or two. He isnt giving anyone a pass. http://books.google....onepage&q&f=false I am in no way trying to gloss over slavery but I am assuming that many of the traits of the folks of color and indigenous whites is not as cut and dried as the revisionists would leave you to believe. Having spent time in the deep south 12-15 years after the civil rights act passed with many of the same divisions that have festered for generations still very much at the surface I learned a few things. One being that a man regardless of color is proud, and he will fight strangers for his family, land and way of life even if the person/goverment/entity asserting the change claims it is for the better. So while it would surprise you to think that any male black in the south would fight on behalf of the confederacy it doesnt surprise me at all. As for your cite that only lily liver'ed whites may serve, please explain General Stand Watie, The seminoles who also fought who were often half black, Creeks, choctaws and others. Trying to claim the south was all about rich white people is revisionism at its worst. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #347,432 by mmoffitt 9/7/11 8:48:31 AM Reply	Or as Shelby noted... In Richmond, Jefferson Davis repeated, "All we ask is to be let alone," a remark which a Virginia private was to translate into combat terms when he told his captors, "I'm fighting because you're down here." http://homepage.eirc...Shelby_Foote.html

Welcome to IWETHEY!